A New Breakthrough Theory of the Big Bang

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by joshgreen, Oct 28, 2014.

?

Do you believe observations point to our current big bang model?

Poll closed Nov 4, 2014.
  1. No

    33.3%
  2. Yes

    66.7%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Nothing wrong in thinking differently, its just prudent to have some evidence supporting your stance.
    I don't know enough about the details of the Inflation scenario and the different models that do exist to argue too much on that score.
    I'll just state the obvious that the BB/Inflationary cosmology is still far and above, the accepted incumbent theory for Universal evolution.


    I see a Cornell link as far more reliable and reputable than any WIKI link.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    Peace, bro.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    BINGO!!!!!!
    I did say earlier in the thread that I smelt an agenda, and I think I have found it.
    Despite the obvious of promoting a book, this same author "Josh Greenberger"also appears to be a Creationist/God botherer of the highest order.........

    Found this......[highlights by me]
    at: https://www.bookshopofindia.com/search.asp?action1=default&bookid=9127629
    Description: The V-Bang theory addresses the problems and loopholes associated with the Big Bang theory as its prime focus. It suggests a completely new theory which, instead of doing patch-up repair on the existing loopholes, re-examines the formation of the universe and answers the questions unanswered till now. It also addresses the mysteries of dark energy, origin of matter and horizon problem among others. The V-Bang theory is the overhaul that the Big Bang was much in need of. In this book: • The Big Bang: A Big Blunder of Universal Proportions • The V-Bang • The Fossil Record Disproves Darwinian Evolution • What Qualified Charles Darwin To Propose the Theory of Evolution? • Abiogenesis: Is it Even Possible? • Outdated Dating Methods • Our Solar System: How Did It Form? • SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF A SOUL EXISTS: The Big Bang: A Big Blunder of Universal Proportions • The V-Bang • The Fossil Records Disprove Darwinian Evolution: What Qualified Charles Darwin To Propose the Theory of Evolution? • ABIOGENESIS: IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE?• Outdated Dating Methods • Our Solar System: How Did It Form? • Scientific Evidence of a Soul ISBN - 9788130922997
    The above from....
    https://www.bookshopofindia.com/search.asp?action1=default&bookid=9127629
    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
    and here..................................
    http://www.bokus.com/bok/9781481098...g-evidence-yet-that-evolution-never-happened/
    Fossil Discoveries Disprove Evolution Beyond a Doubt: The Most Compelling Evidence Yet That Evolution Never Happened.


    So there we have it! Another God Botherering Anti science troll, out to promote his pixie in the sky nonsense.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
  8. theorist-constant12345 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,660
    I have read your idea, and there is a fault in your logical reasoning ,

    ''And it is this strong gravitational pull that gives the impression of an expanding universe, when in fact celestial objects are simply being pulled outward by gravity.''


    If that were the case, then why does our Sun remain relative central and not expand the same as the rest?

    If you said the expansion had passed the event horizon of our system gravitational pull, and was caught in some sort of ''centrifugal flow'', Then your idea might make sense.

     
  9. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    from memepix. Reminds me of so many threads here, but this one really deserves it.
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I have read your questioning and pseudoscientific explanations, and they make no sense.
     
  11. theorist-constant12345 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,660
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Try a more scientifically illustrated video instead of crappy fairy tales......


    or......



    Or an explanation already posted about how in line with the laws of physics and GR, something can certainly arise from nothing.....

    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
    A Universe from Nothing
    by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff


    In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.

    The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.

    What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

    Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.

    Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable.


    If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours.
    https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/
    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    What you need to learn from all that, is that even though Filippenko is a qualified, reputable physicist, he does not put his idea as a 100% faitre complei certainty, even though it aligns with the laws of physics and GR.
    He admits in the last paragraph, that it is speculation aligning with those same laws and GR.
    That is far different from the YEC's like the author of the OP, or as portrayed by some of our alternative hypothesis people, troubled and blinded by their inflated egos and delusions of grandeur.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2014
  13. theorist-constant12345 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,660
    I think you misinterpreted the sarcasm in the video, that nothing can not exist, and there has to be something, before the big bang. Nothing can not create something, no energy , no something. When I refer to the nothing particle in the video, that is because it is un-named, call then Neutrons if it helps.

    It is a sarcastic representation. Saying and showing by logic that there can not be something from nothing.
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    See there you go again...Mistaking uneducated intuition with logic....
    https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/
    What you need to learn from the above, is that even though Filippenko is a qualified, reputable physicist, he does not put his idea as a 100% faitre complei certainty, even though it aligns with the laws of physics and GR.
    He admits in the last paragraph, that it is speculation aligning with those same laws and GR.
    That is far different from the YEC's like the author of the OP, or as portrayed by some of our alternative hypothesis people, troubled and blinded by their inflated egos and delusions of grandeur.


    I just see unsupported, unevidenced, and uneducated claims.
     
  15. theorist-constant12345 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,660
    I do know what a logical axiom is, and something of absoluteness can not be denied, a simple formula nothing=nothing,
    something=something,

    I think you will find that is a logical axiom of absoluteness, so something was before the big bang, and that something created a further something.
    Unless you want to agree with the bible.
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    I believe you are trolling.
    Your bible reference is non scientific...so why would I invoke that.
    Anyway, I've finished for the present playing your trollish games, and won't be replying anymore to the nonsensical stuff that has been already debunked by all here and elsewhere.
    If you are banned here, I do not want to be washed down with you.
    So I'll leave it to you with the nonsense.
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Jst to make sure you get this sal old matey.....
    check out posts 43 and 44
    or for your conveniance....
    https://www.bookshopofindia.com/search.asp?action1=default&bookid=9127629
    and
    http://www.arpast.org/newsevents/articles/article42.pdf

    Notice a few of the subject matter from josh...or is it sal?
    "Is There Scientific Evidence Of A Soul"?
    "Fossil Discoveries Disprove Evolution Beyond a Doubt"
    "The Most Compelling Evidence Yet That Evolution Never Happened.
    "Abiogenesis: Is it Even Possible?"


    Hope all that helps in revealing exactly what non scientific garbage we are dealing with here.
     
  18. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,191
    There's a presumptive one: You.
    Presuming to define the boundries of reality for the rest of us.
    You're not needed.
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    You have an objection to a breakthrough theory of the big bang being published in peer-reviewed journals? Or an objection to me asking about whether said theory has been so published? Or what?

    As usual, your post would benefit from some added clarity. I know that cryptic jibes appeal to you, but they don't hit home when everybody just goes "Ah... whaa? Err... Ok then."

    Me? How so? Am I defining your boundaries, Mr. G? How presumptuous of me.

    Sounds like you're defining my boundaries. Quit bugging me, man!
     
  20. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Actually JamesR is needed here more than he has time to allow. You speak for yourself in insulting him, and only because he has useful, informative, accurate and insightful responses indicative of a superior intellect and education. Evidently that threatens you.

    And when you cross the line, he will be the one who makes you go away -- in the interest of all the readers. In a perfect world, JamesR would have infinite time to offer tutorials for all the cranks and trolls, and he could regulate their membership here according to whether they could pass his tests. In such a world, the whole site would be like science club or classroom. All the intelligent and well informed members would be engaged in purely technical dialogue, with none of the crank nonsense that loves to play games here.
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  21. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    How so? This thread is the exact opposite of the cartoon. In the cartoon there are idiots disagreeing with science. This thread is science disagreeing with idiots.
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Well said.
     
  23. Vin samplor Registered Member

    Messages:
    3
    "Edge of the unverse" is an expression. How can you take it literally? When someone tells you winter is around the corner, do you run around the corner looking for winter?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page